Little Debbie

[Tigermike 3,426]

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) appeared on Fox News last night with Bret Baier, who asked the simple question: why haven’t Senate Democrats passed a budget? Wasserman Schultz wanted to gripe about the House-passed Paul Ryan budget, but when Baier asked why the Senate hadn’t passed a budget resolution in 1,092 days, Wasserman Schultz scolded him for talking about “process.” She did try to argue at one point that Democrats have proposed a budget — the White House budget from Barack Obama — but Baier forced her to change direction when he asked why the Senate hadn’t bothered to vote on it.

She is right we have two ways to go in November:

If you want MORE government spending vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want more of the same vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want the country to go the way of Greece - vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want Eric Holder to continue his Fast and Furious program - vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want higher fuel prices - vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

This is a pretty simple “process.” Each chamber passes a version of the budget, and it goes into conference committee. That’s simpler in the Senate than most other legislation, since filibusters cannot be used on budgets; a simple majority is all that’s needed to pass it. In order to get a budget into conference committee, though, both chambers have to actually pass a budget in the first place, and it’s been three years and counting since the Senate bothered to comply with the law and produce an annual budget resolution.

This is a failure of leadership. And last night, the Democrats’ leader failed miserably to defend a three-year-plus record of cowardice on budgeting.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Honestly, I'm losing faith in both sides - and neither side can do anything about gas prices.

We'll have an ass ton of government spending irrespective of who's in office. It's just trading one guys shopping list for another.

[Tigermike 3,426]

Honestly, I'm losing faith in both sides - and neither side can do anything about gas prices.

Strange isn't it how Obama campaigned on high gas prices now they are telling the world "he can't do anything about them." But his policies have not helped.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Honestly, I'm losing faith in both sides - and neither side can do anything about gas prices.

We'll have an ass ton of government spending irrespective of who's in office. It's just trading one guys shopping list for another.

There's one problem w/ losing 'faith' in the old guard, hold the line GOP types, and then lumping their failings to the out right destructive polices that the Social Democrats of today.

Things that ticked me off about Bush43, w/ regards to policy, were the deaf ear he had on immigration, the excess in federal spending ( talking about having nothing to do w/ 2 wars or with national security ), the Patriot Act, Harriet Myers to the USSC, and failing to veto McCain - Feingold. I could think of more, but that's just for starters.

However, THE most important thing we need to focus on, regardless of how short the GOP is coming up in certain areas, is getting Obama and his band of committed socialists OUT of office. There are folks talking the right language, from Rubio to Jindal and Allen West, but aside from all that, we simply have to boot the current regime of Pelosi, Reid and Obama the hell out of power. These folks are committed, they're dangerous and need to go. NOW.

[80Tiger 906]

Honestly, I'm losing faith in both sides - and neither side can do anything about gas prices.

We'll have an ass ton of government spending irrespective of who's in office. It's just trading one guys shopping list for another.

I do not understand when people say "neither side can do anything about gas prices." It has happened before and it will happen again. Our U.S. policy on energy has an affect on oil prices across the world. It happen in the summer of 2008 when prices at the pump were almost 4.00 per gallon. The administration endorsed the increasing the production of U.S. crude through the opening of off shore drilling leases in both Atlantic and the gulf. This action was a change in energy policy and was done with the sole purpose of driving the cost of crude down throughout the world. And it worked. Within six months prices at the pump were down by over half. In early 2009 these policies were reversed by the current administration and we see what prices at the pump and crude has done.

There has been much written after the fact about how market forces and other mysterious forces actually caused oil prices down. The fact of the matter is we have a real life economic experiment that took place in summer of 2008 and ended in early 2009. There was a problem (crude and pump prices were high), we took an action to increase volume and supply (new leases in Atlantic and gulf), we had a reaction due to a policy change and just the threat of increased U.S. production (prices dropped dramatically) and then we had a reversal of said policy and reverse reaction once that threat of increased production was removed (prices for crude and at pump sky rocket).

Say all you want about not affecting the price of oil but foreign oil is still scared of the US economic production machine when put into action.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Honestly, I'm losing faith in both sides - and neither side can do anything about gas prices.

We'll have an ass ton of government spending irrespective of who's in office. It's just trading one guys shopping list for another.

I do not understand when people say "neither side can do anything about gas prices." It has happened before and it will happen again. Our U.S. policy on energy has an affect on oil prices across the world. It happen in the summer of 2008 when prices at the pump were almost 4.00 per gallon. The administration endorsed the increasing the production of U.S. crude through the opening of off shore drilling leases in both Atlantic and the gulf. This action was a change in energy policy and was done with the sole purpose of driving the cost of crude down throughout the world. And it worked. Within six months prices at the pump were down by over half. In early 2009 these policies were reversed by the current administration and we see what prices at the pump and crude has done.

There has been much written after the fact about how market forces and other mysterious forces actually caused oil prices down. The fact of the matter is we have a real life economic experiment that took place in summer of 2008 and ended in early 2009. There was a problem (crude and pump prices were high), we took an action to increase volume and supply (new leases in Atlantic and gulf), we had a reaction due to a policy change and just the threat of increased U.S. production (prices dropped dramatically) and then we had a reversal of said policy and reverse reaction once that threat of increased production was removed (prices for crude and at pump sky rocket).

Say all you want about not affecting the price of oil but foreign oil is still scared of the US economic production machine when put into action.

I think you should go back and look at what else happened in 2008.

Remember correlation is not causation.

[80Tiger 906]

Honestly, I'm losing faith in both sides - and neither side can do anything about gas prices.

We'll have an ass ton of government spending irrespective of who's in office. It's just trading one guys shopping list for another.

I do not understand when people say "neither side can do anything about gas prices." It has happened before and it will happen again. Our U.S. policy on energy has an affect on oil prices across the world. It happen in the summer of 2008 when prices at the pump were almost 4.00 per gallon. The administration endorsed the increasing the production of U.S. crude through the opening of off shore drilling leases in both Atlantic and the gulf. This action was a change in energy policy and was done with the sole purpose of driving the cost of crude down throughout the world. And it worked. Within six months prices at the pump were down by over half. In early 2009 these policies were reversed by the current administration and we see what prices at the pump and crude has done.

There has been much written after the fact about how market forces and other mysterious forces actually caused oil prices down. The fact of the matter is we have a real life economic experiment that took place in summer of 2008 and ended in early 2009. There was a problem (crude and pump prices were high), we took an action to increase volume and supply (new leases in Atlantic and gulf), we had a reaction due to a policy change and just the threat of increased U.S. production (prices dropped dramatically) and then we had a reversal of said policy and reverse reaction once that threat of increased production was removed (prices for crude and at pump sky rocket).

Say all you want about not affecting the price of oil but foreign oil is still scared of the US economic production machine when put into action.

I think you should go back and look at what else happened in 2008.

Remember correlation is not causation.

No problem. The economy got worse. I get it. What does that mean? It means that demand dropped and supply starting outstripping demand. Same economic principles at work. Increase supply or threat of it or reduce demand but the result is a lowering of the price. I would argue that reducing demand is the worse of these two options since it has meant other hardships in the economy. I would propose that a growing strong economy needs to be supported by a strong supply of oil from the U.S. and we get lower prices.

I see you are a bama grad so I understand your deficiencies in your economic training(just kidding).

[BamaGrad03 0]

Honestly, I'm losing faith in both sides - and neither side can do anything about gas prices.

We'll have an ass ton of government spending irrespective of who's in office. It's just trading one guys shopping list for another.

I do not understand when people say "neither side can do anything about gas prices." It has happened before and it will happen again. Our U.S. policy on energy has an affect on oil prices across the world. It happen in the summer of 2008 when prices at the pump were almost 4.00 per gallon. The administration endorsed the increasing the production of U.S. crude through the opening of off shore drilling leases in both Atlantic and the gulf. This action was a change in energy policy and was done with the sole purpose of driving the cost of crude down throughout the world. And it worked. Within six months prices at the pump were down by over half. In early 2009 these policies were reversed by the current administration and we see what prices at the pump and crude has done.

There has been much written after the fact about how market forces and other mysterious forces actually caused oil prices down. The fact of the matter is we have a real life economic experiment that took place in summer of 2008 and ended in early 2009. There was a problem (crude and pump prices were high), we took an action to increase volume and supply (new leases in Atlantic and gulf), we had a reaction due to a policy change and just the threat of increased U.S. production (prices dropped dramatically) and then we had a reversal of said policy and reverse reaction once that threat of increased production was removed (prices for crude and at pump sky rocket).

Say all you want about not affecting the price of oil but foreign oil is still scared of the US economic production machine when put into action.

I think you should go back and look at what else happened in 2008.

Remember correlation is not causation.

No problem. The economy got worse. I get it. What does that mean? It means that demand dropped and supply starting outstripping demand. Same economic principles at work. Increase supply or threat of it or reduce demand but the result is a lowering of the price. I would argue that reducing demand is the worse of these two options since it has meant other hardships in the economy. I would propose that a growing strong economy needs to be supported by a strong supply of oil from the U.S. and we get lower prices.

I see you are a bama grad so I understand your deficiencies in your economic training(just kidding).

The economy didn't just get worse. The bottom fell out of it. The hope of uncovering a small bit of oil yet to be discovered didn't rapidly impact the market. The market reacts to what happens - today. Not what might happen 15 years from now when proper infrastructure gets in place, we start drilling, and we might be able to increase supply.

Secondarily, demand is now lower than it was 10 years ago. Yet oil and gas prices still remain high. If it was entirely demand driven, then you'd see prices dropping along with demand projections. But it hasn't. Oil and gas costs what we are willing to pay for it. Gas companies have figured this out. They've also figured out that instead of flooding domestic supply with domestically pumped surplus, they can make more money by selling it over seas. So now the US is a net exporter of gas.

The Obama administration could open up every permit, block no drilling, and go full throttle on drill baby drill. Wouldn't make a blip on the radar. The price might adjust downward slightly from an overraction, but until oil becomes as common as water, we are going to pay what the gas companies realize we're going to pay.

[Grumps 3,706]

Honestly, I'm losing faith in both sides - and neither side can do anything about gas prices.

We'll have an ass ton of government spending irrespective of who's in office. It's just trading one guys shopping list for another.

I do not understand when people say "neither side can do anything about gas prices." It has happened before and it will happen again. Our U.S. policy on energy has an affect on oil prices across the world. It happen in the summer of 2008 when prices at the pump were almost 4.00 per gallon. The administration endorsed the increasing the production of U.S. crude through the opening of off shore drilling leases in both Atlantic and the gulf. This action was a change in energy policy and was done with the sole purpose of driving the cost of crude down throughout the world. And it worked. Within six months prices at the pump were down by over half. In early 2009 these policies were reversed by the current administration and we see what prices at the pump and crude has done.

There has been much written after the fact about how market forces and other mysterious forces actually caused oil prices down. The fact of the matter is we have a real life economic experiment that took place in summer of 2008 and ended in early 2009. There was a problem (crude and pump prices were high), we took an action to increase volume and supply (new leases in Atlantic and gulf), we had a reaction due to a policy change and just the threat of increased U.S. production (prices dropped dramatically) and then we had a reversal of said policy and reverse reaction once that threat of increased production was removed (prices for crude and at pump sky rocket).

Say all you want about not affecting the price of oil but foreign oil is still scared of the US economic production machine when put into action.

I think you should go back and look at what else happened in 2008.

Remember correlation is not causation.

No problem. The economy got worse. I get it. What does that mean? It means that demand dropped and supply starting outstripping demand. Same economic principles at work. Increase supply or threat of it or reduce demand but the result is a lowering of the price. I would argue that reducing demand is the worse of these two options since it has meant other hardships in the economy. I would propose that a growing strong economy needs to be supported by a strong supply of oil from the U.S. and we get lower prices.

I see you are a bama grad so I understand your deficiencies in your economic training(just kidding).

The economy didn't just get worse. The bottom fell out of it. The hope of uncovering a small bit of oil yet to be discovered didn't rapidly impact the market. The market reacts to what happens - today. Not what might happen 15 years from now when proper infrastructure gets in place, we start drilling, and we might be able to increase supply.

Secondarily, demand is now lower than it was 10 years ago. Yet oil and gas prices still remain high. If it was entirely demand driven, then you'd see prices dropping along with demand projections. But it hasn't. Oil and gas costs what we are willing to pay for it. Gas companies have figured this out. They've also figured out that instead of flooding domestic supply with domestically pumped surplus, they can make more money by selling it over seas. So now the US is a net exporter of gas.

The Obama administration could open up every permit, block no drilling, and go full throttle on drill baby drill. Wouldn't make a blip on the radar. The price might adjust downward slightly from an overraction, but until oil becomes as common as water, we are going to pay what the gas companies realize we're going to pay.

Do you really think that increasing the supply of oil would not lower gas prices? I agree that doing things to increase supply won't significantly lower the gas price quickly, but if we had been working to increase supply for the past 5 years do you really think it would have no effect on gas prices now? Just because gas prices are not entirely demand driven, does not mean that gas prices are not partially demand driven. I fail to see how the laws of supply and demand have no effect on gas prices.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Honestly, I'm losing faith in both sides - and neither side can do anything about gas prices.

We'll have an ass ton of government spending irrespective of who's in office. It's just trading one guys shopping list for another.

I do not understand when people say "neither side can do anything about gas prices." It has happened before and it will happen again. Our U.S. policy on energy has an affect on oil prices across the world. It happen in the summer of 2008 when prices at the pump were almost 4.00 per gallon. The administration endorsed the increasing the production of U.S. crude through the opening of off shore drilling leases in both Atlantic and the gulf. This action was a change in energy policy and was done with the sole purpose of driving the cost of crude down throughout the world. And it worked. Within six months prices at the pump were down by over half. In early 2009 these policies were reversed by the current administration and we see what prices at the pump and crude has done.

There has been much written after the fact about how market forces and other mysterious forces actually caused oil prices down. The fact of the matter is we have a real life economic experiment that took place in summer of 2008 and ended in early 2009. There was a problem (crude and pump prices were high), we took an action to increase volume and supply (new leases in Atlantic and gulf), we had a reaction due to a policy change and just the threat of increased U.S. production (prices dropped dramatically) and then we had a reversal of said policy and reverse reaction once that threat of increased production was removed (prices for crude and at pump sky rocket).

Say all you want about not affecting the price of oil but foreign oil is still scared of the US economic production machine when put into action.

I think you should go back and look at what else happened in 2008.

Remember correlation is not causation.

No problem. The economy got worse. I get it. What does that mean? It means that demand dropped and supply starting outstripping demand. Same economic principles at work. Increase supply or threat of it or reduce demand but the result is a lowering of the price. I would argue that reducing demand is the worse of these two options since it has meant other hardships in the economy. I would propose that a growing strong economy needs to be supported by a strong supply of oil from the U.S. and we get lower prices.

I see you are a bama grad so I understand your deficiencies in your economic training(just kidding).

The economy didn't just get worse. The bottom fell out of it. The hope of uncovering a small bit of oil yet to be discovered didn't rapidly impact the market. The market reacts to what happens - today. Not what might happen 15 years from now when proper infrastructure gets in place, we start drilling, and we might be able to increase supply.

Secondarily, demand is now lower than it was 10 years ago. Yet oil and gas prices still remain high. If it was entirely demand driven, then you'd see prices dropping along with demand projections. But it hasn't. Oil and gas costs what we are willing to pay for it. Gas companies have figured this out. They've also figured out that instead of flooding domestic supply with domestically pumped surplus, they can make more money by selling it over seas. So now the US is a net exporter of gas.

The Obama administration could open up every permit, block no drilling, and go full throttle on drill baby drill. Wouldn't make a blip on the radar. The price might adjust downward slightly from an overraction, but until oil becomes as common as water, we are going to pay what the gas companies realize we're going to pay.

Do you really think that increasing the supply of oil would not lower gas prices? I agree that doing things to increase supply won't significantly lower the gas price quickly, but if we had been working to increase supply for the past 5 years do you really think it would have no effect on gas prices now? Just because gas prices are not entirely demand driven, does not mean that gas prices are not partially demand driven. I fail to see how the laws of supply and demand have no effect on gas prices.

you do realize demand is lower than it was 10 years ago?

[Grumps 3,706]

That is one part of the equation. Point?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Do you really think that increasing the supply of oil would not lower gas prices? I agree that doing things to increase supply won't significantly lower the gas price quickly, but if we had been working to increase supply for the past 5 years do you really think it would have no effect on gas prices now? Just because gas prices are not entirely demand driven, does not mean that gas prices are not partially demand driven. I fail to see how the laws of supply and demand have no effect on gas prices.

I think it's partially demand driven. But supply is going to have to get SO overloaded that it just chokes out the prices.

Unless you have a 20-30% increase in supply, or 20-30% decrease in demand, the oil companies are just going to keep hammering us.

And while domestic drilling would increase jobs and increase the amount of revenue generated from gasoline exports, it's not the silver bullet that my fellow conservatives want it to be. I WANT more domestic drilling. But I'm also very pessimistic that oil prices are related to supply, and even more pessimistic that gas is related to oil.

We've got $100 oil and $4 gas. A few years ago we had $100 oil and $2.50 gas. Oil companies know how much we'll pay.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Gas prices now are the same as they were in 2008 when oil was 146 a barrel. It is 104 today. It took oil going from 146 to 36 a barrel for the price of gasoline to get to its lows.

If you think handing out a few more drilling permits is what made that happen, you're crazy.

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) appeared on Fox News last night with Bret Baier, who asked the simple question: why haven’t Senate Democrats passed a budget? Wasserman Schultz wanted to gripe about the House-passed Paul Ryan budget, but when Baier asked why the Senate hadn’t passed a budget resolution in 1,092 days, Wasserman Schultz scolded him for talking about “process.” She did try to argue at one point that Democrats have proposed a budget — the White House budget from Barack Obama — but Baier forced her to change direction when he asked why the Senate hadn’t bothered to vote on it.

She is right we have two ways to go in November:

If you want MORE government spending vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want more of the same vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want the country to go the way of Greece - vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want Eric Holder to continue his Fast and Furious program - vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want higher fuel prices - vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

This is a pretty simple “process.” Each chamber passes a version of the budget, and it goes into conference committee. That’s simpler in the Senate than most other legislation, since filibusters cannot be used on budgets; a simple majority is all that’s needed to pass it. In order to get a budget into conference committee, though, both chambers have to actually pass a budget in the first place, and it’s been three years and counting since the Senate bothered to comply with the law and produce an annual budget resolution.

This is a failure of leadership. And last night, the Democrats’ leader failed miserably to defend a three-year-plus record of cowardice on budgeting.

Debbie had a chance to vote for the "obama budget" in the House: 0-414

She must have been absent that day, huh?

[Auburn85 434]

She's horrible. I can't stand her... that's why I always sit down when reading or watching a video of her.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Honestly, I'm losing faith in both sides - and neither side can do anything about gas prices.

We'll have an ass ton of government spending irrespective of who's in office. It's just trading one guys shopping list for another.

I do not understand when people say "neither side can do anything about gas prices." It has happened before and it will happen again. Our U.S. policy on energy has an affect on oil prices across the world. It happen in the summer of 2008 when prices at the pump were almost 4.00 per gallon. The administration endorsed the increasing the production of U.S. crude through the opening of off shore drilling leases in both Atlantic and the gulf. This action was a change in energy policy and was done with the sole purpose of driving the cost of crude down throughout the world. And it worked. Within six months prices at the pump were down by over half. In early 2009 these policies were reversed by the current administration and we see what prices at the pump and crude has done.

There has been much written after the fact about how market forces and other mysterious forces actually caused oil prices down. The fact of the matter is we have a real life economic experiment that took place in summer of 2008 and ended in early 2009. There was a problem (crude and pump prices were high), we took an action to increase volume and supply (new leases in Atlantic and gulf), we had a reaction due to a policy change and just the threat of increased U.S. production (prices dropped dramatically) and then we had a reversal of said policy and reverse reaction once that threat of increased production was removed (prices for crude and at pump sky rocket).

Say all you want about not affecting the price of oil but foreign oil is still scared of the US economic production machine when put into action.

I think you should go back and look at what else happened in 2008.

Remember correlation is not causation.

No problem. The economy got worse. I get it. What does that mean? It means that demand dropped and supply starting outstripping demand. Same economic principles at work. Increase supply or threat of it or reduce demand but the result is a lowering of the price. I would argue that reducing demand is the worse of these two options since it has meant other hardships in the economy. I would propose that a growing strong economy needs to be supported by a strong supply of oil from the U.S. and we get lower prices.

I see you are a bama grad so I understand your deficiencies in your economic training(just kidding).

The economy didn't just get worse. The bottom fell out of it. The hope of uncovering a small bit of oil yet to be discovered didn't rapidly impact the market. The market reacts to what happens - today. Not what might happen 15 years from now when proper infrastructure gets in place, we start drilling, and we might be able to increase supply.

Secondarily, demand is now lower than it was 10 years ago. Yet oil and gas prices still remain high. If it was entirely demand driven, then you'd see prices dropping along with demand projections. But it hasn't. Oil and gas costs what we are willing to pay for it. Gas companies have figured this out. They've also figured out that instead of flooding domestic supply with domestically pumped surplus, they can make more money by selling it over seas. So now the US is a net exporter of gas.

The Obama administration could open up every permit, block no drilling, and go full throttle on drill baby drill. Wouldn't make a blip on the radar. The price might adjust downward slightly from an overraction, but until oil becomes as common as water, we are going to pay what the gas companies realize we're going to pay.

Do you really think that increasing the supply of oil would not lower gas prices? I agree that doing things to increase supply won't significantly lower the gas price quickly, but if we had been working to increase supply for the past 5 years do you really think it would have no effect on gas prices now? Just because gas prices are not entirely demand driven, does not mean that gas prices are not partially demand driven. I fail to see how the laws of supply and demand have no effect on gas prices.

you do realize demand is lower than it was 10 years ago?

And supply has quickly caught up with the decrease in demand. You do realize that demand on the global scale has not fallen like it has in the United States, right?

[autigeremt 6,970]

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) appeared on Fox News last night with Bret Baier, who asked the simple question: why haven't Senate Democrats passed a budget? Wasserman Schultz wanted to gripe about the House-passed Paul Ryan budget, but when Baier asked why the Senate hadn't passed a budget resolution in 1,092 days, Wasserman Schultz scolded him for talking about "process." She did try to argue at one point that Democrats have proposed a budget — the White House budget from Barack Obama — but Baier forced her to change direction when he asked why the Senate hadn't bothered to vote on it.

She is right we have two ways to go in November:

If you want MORE government spending vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want more of the same vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want the country to go the way of Greece - vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want Eric Holder to continue his Fast and Furious program - vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

If you want higher fuel prices - vote for Obama. If not vote for Romney.

This is a pretty simple "process." Each chamber passes a version of the budget, and it goes into conference committee. That's simpler in the Senate than most other legislation, since filibusters cannot be used on budgets; a simple majority is all that's needed to pass it. In order to get a budget into conference committee, though, both chambers have to actually pass a budget in the first place, and it's been three years and counting since the Senate bothered to comply with the law and produce an annual budget resolution.

This is a failure of leadership. And last night, the Democrats' leader failed miserably to defend a three-year-plus record of cowardice on budgeting.

Debbie had a chance to vote for the "obama budget" in the House: 0-414

She must have been absent that day, huh?